Talk:Jama Masjid, Delhi/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 10:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I will do this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job with this, I can see just two major issues here but should be easy enough given the size of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All comments addressed, article passes. 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Main

(Criteria 3) I feel both 2006 Jama Masjid explosions and 2010 Jama Masjid attack, as subarticles, need to be summarised more and have the "{{main|" section headers like how it was before here. I'm not sure about the notability of those two subarticles but this article needs to stand on its own, content-wise. At minimum, I would say that the 2006 attack would need one para while the 2010 needs two. "Terrorist" is a word to watch, so keep that in mind while doing the section titles.

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "terrorist" word is still there. Both the attacks can have their own subsections according to their article title.

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't feel the controversy section is warranted; any title is better the just "controversy". It seems that just the part about the succession and the high court intervention needs to be covered. Writing about the minor controversy (WP:NOTNEWS) regarding Sharif's invitation as well as that quotation seems UNDUE.

If we remove these informations, then the article would be deprived of real facts. The quotation is very much pertinent as it justifies the imam's action, otherwise there will be a question in the mind of the readers. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying just the succession dispute cannot be mentioned alone, even the ceremony and Sharif invitation is essential? In that case, give me some time to think about it.

Okay, I don't think this content dispute should affect the GA review.

Done

- Both the attacks, the mention about succession, and the report that the mosque was in need of repair can be clubbed together under one main section (could be called "Modern" since it could be under "History", whatever works well).

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Can a mention of the exact location (beyond just "next to Red Fort, New Delhi, India") of the mosque be mentioned? Can there be a more detailed address?

Its located in Chandni Chowk, near Red Fort. But I find no published claim of it, so I am unable to add it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's fine.

Done

(6) The gallery section has to be removed per WP:IG. Then probably the article could have just 4–5 images, select the images which go best next the prose (like putting a the relevant images to what's being described in "Architecture"). See WP:PERTINENCE and WP:IMGLOC.

There is no place left in architecture section to put the image. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you could remove all the images and put only the relevant ones. The gallery section anyway isn't permissible.

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good, just trim the image cluttering a bit. WP:IMGLOC says don't sandwich text with images on both sides. Images should typically be arranged alternatively between left and right. So you probably have to remove one extra image. Example, see Belton House.

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1B) There seems to be an overuse of quotation marks. Like see: he had "received the offer directly from the Saudi authorities" but requested "them" for "approaching"...There was "also talk of destroying the mosque" for punishing the people of the city. But due to opposition faced, the mosque "survived". This feels like SCAREQUOTES and the common words which are marked just confuse the reader. Like, in my example, why is there need for the marks here? The only time the marks are needed is when you're directly quoting some source, then of course, you'll also need a backing inline citation. However, there are many instances of this in the article and none look like direct quotations. If the statements are copied verbatim from the references and are not meant to be quotations, then simply paraphrase it.

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still more of those unneeded quotation marks left in the rest of the article. Do you need help or should I point them out (there's around ten)? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1B) Lead: This statement in "History" would better fit in the lead "was completed in 1656 AD with three great gates, four towers and two 40 m high minarets constructed of strips of red sandstone and white marble." This will cover the architecture part in the lead.

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor) Consider adding non-breaking spaces (NBSP) and {{Convert}} to all the units, measurements etc. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugog Nizdast: done all the rest. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new content about the blasts which you've added, it says "This attack created disrupt about the 2010 Commonwealth Games which scheduled to take place in the Indian capital". Did it? and was it that the attack took place with the intent to disrupt the Games? Is it factually accurate that blasts affected the Games. What do the majority of the sources say? Done

Except that source, I dont find mention of that fact. So I have removed it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, History and lead, you've mentioned 1656 but again in the lead as well as History, "between 1644 and 1658" is written as the date? So when actually did the construction finish? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]

Again!! These type of inconsistencies a prevalent in when Islamic dates are converted to English dates. Still I prefer Dalrymple's one so I have made in 1656. @Ugog Nizdast: RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I pass this article. See you in the next review. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I've made a mistake on the Image galleries thing, have explained it at Talk:Badshahi Mosque/GA1#GA Review. You can add it back. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]